Scientology and Hypnotism — Even some ex-members can’t admit its central role

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
There's a great post on Tony O's blog this morning. I'll drop an excerpt of it here:

Jon Atack: Scientology and hypnotism — even some ex-members can’t admit its central role

Jon Atack is the author of A Piece of Blue Sky, one of the very best books on L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology. He has a new edition of the book for sale, and for more than a year on Saturdays he helped us sift through the legends, myths, and contested facts about Scientology that tend to get hashed and rehashed in books, articles, and especially on the Internet. He was kind enough to send us a new post.

Thanks again for another guest post, Jon. What are you looking into this time?

JON: I’ve been talking to a recently defected former Scientologist who blogs as ‘Mockingbird.’ He left earlier this year, after 25 years in the cult. He has steamed ahead and investigated hypnosis in a series of articles.

In one of his pieces, he makes this very pertinent statement: “Scientology has a wealth of false info on hypnosis and in particular makes followers ignorant and determined to not learn anything outside Scientology about hypnosis: This is intentional on LRH’s part.”

Mockingbird has expressed his surprise to me that so few former members are even willing to think about the hypnotic nature of the “Technology.” I told him about my own departure from the “Tech” back in the mists of history (the 1980s, when Kurt Vonnegut Jr. still walked the earth). I was very lucky to have my close friend Mitch, who was every bit as curious as I was, but I don’t remember anyone else, among the hundreds of former members with whom I dealt, who had the slightest interest in understanding the nature of Scientology. They were very happy to argue strenuously against any criticism, but that was it.

<snip>

Read Full Post: http://tonyortega.org/2014/10/25/jon-atack-2/#more-17624
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation



I wasn't hypnotized, I was just really silly and was at an awkward point in life.

I'd quite like to blame becoming involved in the cult on my being hypnotized ... but it just wouldn't be true.


:no:
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
I'm speaking with no personal experience of auditing or hypnotism; but from that non-experience I can say one thing, which is: the way people talk about hypnotism in Scientology does seem strange.

Most people don't talk about it much. Threads where it gets mentioned don't tend to draw posts from many people. A few people tackle the topic enthusiastically; but then they somehow sound a bit over the top about it. For what it's worth, given my inexperience, I find it hard to believe that many people really got stuck in Scientology because they got post-hypnotically suggested into it in the classic stage-hypnotist way. "You are getting sleepy ... watch the swinging coin ... stare deep into my eyes ... now believe you are an aarvark ... now join the Sea Org." I'm pretty sure, somehow, that that doesn't happen.

But I don't think that that's the only kind of hypnosis. Consciousness is weird, and no-one really knows what it is, but clearly there are lots of possible mental states. Stubbing your toe can affect your state of mind. So can being hungry, or seeing a member of the opposite sex, or watching a funny video. So can drinking a coffee or a shot of vodka. So can fasting and praying to the point of exhaustion. So can a lot of things.

A lot of smart and decent people get sucked into Scientology, but honestly, Scientology just does not seem all that attractive to me in any ordinary terms. I don't find it impressive intellectually or aesthetically or morally. So the alternative hypothesis, that people are somehow drugged into Scientology, has always seemed plausible to me, just by elimination. Other explanations just don't really seem to fit, to me. Most reasons I've heard for being committed to Scientology have always seemed strangely inadequate; superficially coherent, but so flimsy on closer inspection that it's hard to believe anyone would really base major life decisions on such things. The reasons have always sounded to me more like excuses about which people have deliberately avoided thinking too much, because something else was making them really want to accept Scientology. The something else would be something that played much the role of a drug.

I'm not sure I buy the theory that e-meter currents change the brain; but I don't reject it out of hand, either. Even apart from the electricity, auditing seems to take a relatively unusual kind of mental activity — loosely guided association and recollection — and keep it going for really unusual lengths of time — hours on end. I think it's quite plausible that this has some kind of quasi-hypnotic effect. It's probably not much like the kind of stage hypnosis that makes you believe you're an aardvark. That doesn't mean it's not some other form of hypnosis. "Believe you have an epiphany."

Why isn't "Scientology is hypnosis" at least a standard, major theory, that everyone who investigates the subject encounters very soon? Is it because in fact it's an obviously loopy theory? Or is it because it's all too plausible?
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation


The thing is many people who are the most deeply and firmly entrenched in scientology (SO and org staff) have often not had a single auditing session when they join and once on staff very rarely get taken into session.

They weren't hypnotized into joining, they were just there ... and they fell for the con.

So many others didn't fall for the con though, perhaps because they already had a fulfilling, productive and worthwhile life.


:confused2:
 

George Layton

Silver Meritorious Patron


The thing is many people who are the most deeply and firmly entrenched in scientology (SO and org staff) have often not had a single auditing session when they join and once on staff very rarely get taken into session.

They weren't hypnotized into joining, they were just there ... and they fell for the con.

So many others didn't fall for the con though, perhaps because they already had a fulfilling, productive and worthwhile life.


:confused2:

What's the definition of hypnotized?
 

strativarius

Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband
While I wouldn't presume to contradict the work Arnie, Atack, mockingbird and others have put in, and probably because my 'laymans' idea of hypnotism is the clichèd 'man in a dinner jacket with piercing eyes swinging a pocket-watch', hypnotism doesn't ring a bell for me either, at least not with respect to my initial contact with scn.

No, the main element that drew me into the fold (yes, fold, as in sheep) was the over-the-top (not really noticed at the time) validation, the love-bombing and the opportunity to be not a chemist, or a sociologist but a scientologist, the 'ist' then being important to me, as in those days, real academic qualifications were a bit thin on the ground and did not come along until a lot later. Being accepted and part of a group was enormously important at the time.

If any hypnotic effects did occur, it was surely when I began training as an auditor and started doing TR's etc, along with studying the 'confusing' contradictory nature of the materials.
 
Last edited:

cleared cannibal

Silver Meritorious Patron
I have found that there is three types attracted to Scientology:

1. Idealistic person trying to save the world and help others. (usually young adults)

2. A person who has had a life crisis such as a divorce,bankruptcy ,loss,etc. They are trying to solve their "ruin" or make it less painful.

3. Controlling individuals who delight in exercising power over others. These types seem to become executives in the COS.

These do not include the born in's who know no different.
 

Sindy

Crusader
Per Wikipedia entry:

Hypnosis is a state of consciousness involving focused attention and reduced peripheral awareness characterized by an enhanced capacity for response to suggestion.

In that definition, the entire day to day dealings of the cult are hypnotic.

Things I find truly hypnotic:

The events (Not LRH)
GAT Drills -- especially verbatim drills to the wall (Not LRH)

I do know that when I broke the trance, as I have said many times, it was palpable. It was an actual physiological and psychic, jarring and very noticeable break. If I wasn't hypnotized -- it was some other psychic phenomenon.

I also take full responsibility for it and don't see it as something I can blame.
 

mockingbird

Silver Meritorious Patron
Okay , guys if you read the posts on the thread that Jon posts they are by some guy who believes the indoctrination itself ( ie ALL COURSES AND STUDY TECH )
are themselves hypnotic and he goes on to describe in great detail several methods of hypnosis and persuasion hub uses.

The vast majority of the work is not on auditing which Lermanet.com and Jon Atack and operation Clambake and the Anderson Report and Steve Hassan and several dozen others have ALREADY thoroughly described and exposed as hypnotic mind control !

Regarding defining hypnosis the entire thread basic introduction to hypnotic induction devotes several hundred words to presenting the very simplest and most accepted definitions of hypnosis !

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?37148-BASIC-INTRODUCTION-TO-HYPNOTIC-INDUCTION

Look , the current educational system whether by design or accident , in effect discourages inquisitive critical thinking in general.

Most people have an innate aversion to learning TOO MUCH about hypnotism ANYWAY .

I always did . Unfotunately most people when told you were hypnotized for decades will not just sit down and read twenty to forty books on hypnotism , cults , brainwashing , NLP , trauma , basic psychology , the occult , undue influence, PTSD , and related subjects .

I thought it was the only logical thing to do .

Scientologists waste thousands and thousands of hours in course rooms ruining their minds and lives .

It only seemed natural to spend twenty then two hundred finding out what the fuck happened in there !

Many books I need are online FREE or come from Amazon for two to nine bucks !

Any of them are worth more than the entire Scientology library !

If you want to have an educated conversation about the subject get a threadbare education and READ the posts I put up !

Hypnotism is so much different from and far more than the stage hypnotist EVER reveals !

His few paltry tricks are NOT the tiniest accurate representation of the subject that has evolved over thousands of years !

It has hundreds of techniques and methods and I try to describe simply just a few dozen in my posts .

I will have to describe many more and with much simpler language - but you can start with what I have given so far .
I will not force you but I can beg .
 

The Sloth

Patron with Honors
Hubbard expounded quite a bit on his methodology in SHSBC lectures. The conundrum, from his point of view at the time, was that the "technology" worked, as long as the PC ACTUALLY followed the Auditing commands. This dogged him quite a bit, as having people around with "no results, or slow results" was problematic to an organization with expansionist goals. So one of the first goals of an auditor was to establish a session, establish that the PC was indeed interested in his own difficulties, and willing to talk to the auditor about them.

One of his first observations along this line was "that which moves the person around can evaluate (have command value) over that person. His examples included mothers and children, drill sergeants and new recruits, etc.

Out of this came the CCH processes. The auditor, by moving the PC around in space (Look at that wall, walk over to that wall, etc) was, through Communication, establishing Control over, and ultimately some Havingness for the PC. The stated intention of this was to then follow up with sec checks and problems intensives to get some actual "case gain" on the PC so they had a subjective reality, and desire to continue.

Next, was the relationship of rudiments to "In Sessioness". PC's would come and go, auditing was delivered in blocks of 25 hours, or 12.5 hours, so some would have considerable gaps between their auditing experiences. So the "Session Rudiments" went through a phase of development so that the "In Session" requirements of "Interested in own case and willing to talk to the auditor" could be achieved relatively quickly, so as to allow greater session time to be spent on listing for goals, terminals, opposition terminals, etc which were outlined in R3A, R3D and R3GXX procedures. (Too much to go into here, but the basic theory was that finding the PC's long term, whole track goal would result in a "Clear".)
During this time it was also noted that Rudiments could go out at any point during a session. For example, in response to an auditing command a PC thinks of something discreditable that he was involved with, and does not then mention it to the auditor. This acted as a "session withhold" and threw the session basics out. (ie: willing to talk to the auditor.) This could be observed by the auditor in a couple of ways, but one mentioned several times is that the e-meter needle stopped responding to the auditors commands. (This was called an ARCX needle in the argot.) The main point being that rudiments must be in for the auditor to maintain command value over the PC in session.

So "Command Value" does bear a similarity to "hypnotism". I think Hubbard was aware of it, for example, installing a "canceller" in Dianetic reverie sessions, so that if anything SHOULD act as a "suggestion", it would be 'cancelled' when the auditor uttered the word at the end of the session. As additional support for this, apart from Freud, Hubbard acknowledged his indebtedness to Mesmer and Charcot.
Charcot is best known today, outside the community of neurologists, for his work on hypnosis and hysteria. He initially believed that hysteria was a neurological disorder for which patients were pre-disposed by hereditary features of their nervous system,[SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][15][/SUP] but near the end of his life concluded that hysteria was a psychological disease.[SUP][16][/SUP]

And as a further observation, given the early similarity of Dianetic Procedure to hypnotism, he sought to differentiate the two through a long standing (and at times idiotic) manufactured battle between Dianetics (and later Scientology) and "Psychiatry". Curbing Psychiatric abuses were a part of it as well, but Hubbard went beyond that to Inquisitorial levels of invective aimed at serving his ends of "taking over the field of mental health" on this planet.
 

Cat Daddy

Silver Meritorious Patron
[video=youtube;f4ALoW_yppI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4ALoW_yppI[/video]

[video=youtube;9EdvGzMNej8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EdvGzMNej8[/video]
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
Hubbard expounded quite a bit on his methodology in SHSBC lectures. The conundrum, from his point of view at the time, was that the "technology" worked, as long as the PC ACTUALLY followed the Auditing commands. This dogged him quite a bit, as having people around with "no results, or slow results" was problematic to an organization with expansionist goals. So one of the first goals of an auditor was to establish a session, establish that the PC was indeed interested in his own difficulties, and willing to talk to the auditor about them.

One of his first observations along this line was "that which moves the person around can evaluate (have command value) over that person. His examples included mothers and children, drill sergeants and new recruits, etc.

(snip)

I'll address that last paragraph....first.

This is the stage Attack Method, similar to the Parental induction technique which is an extraordinarily effective method for manipulating those uniformed about these techniques.

The Paternal Induction Technique

This technique tends to use raw repetition, it is fast and rarely perceived by those experiencing it. It is based on the love a child feels for its mother...it is also incredibly EVIL:

A FAST hypnosis technique this seems so familiar, anyone who recalls being subject to something like this, perhaps on IRC chat years ago, please pm me..

Encyclopedia of Hypnotism by Carla Emery wrote:

"The paternal induction style is abrupt, shocking, dictatorial, highly
authoritarian in tone, a domineering technique based on fear. A
paternal-style induction uses a fast, directive induction method with
a cold, unfriendly tone of voice. Ferenczi said that paternal hypnosis
reawakens the hating and fearing attitude learned by a little child
when disciplined by his parents. He said that, in paternal hypnosis,
the subject is motivated by need for "abasement" and for "compliance."
According to psychoanalysts, that need for abasement is an infantile,
erotic, masochistic complex.

Such a subject is in awe of the hypnotist, and submits to the
operator's demands out of fear of him.
...the hypnotist with the imposing exterior, who works by frightening
and startling...[is like] the stern, all-powerful father, to believe
in, to obey, to imitate whom, is the highest ambition of every
child..

[hypnosis] consists in the deliberate establishment of conditions
under which the tendency to blind belief and uncritical obedience
present in everyone, but usually kept repressed by the censor (remains
of the infantile-erotic loving and fearing of the parents), may
unconsciously be transferred to the person hypnotizing... (Ferenczi,
Sex in Psychoanalysis,Ch. 2)
[...]

Hypnosis always arouses a childlike state of mind: dependence and
transference. Transference means relating to the hypnotist as if to a
parent figure, hero, or godlike spiritual leader.

...the hypnotic subject is being directed to assume a state of mind in
which mature discriminations are excluded and childish dependence upon
the hypnotist is encouraged.

As some people are pleased to be in a state where life seems narrowed
down to an easily manageable level of closeness with a powerful
guiding parent, hypnosis is in no danger of extinction... (Kovel, p.
209)

In the midst of World War II, Margaret Estabrooks reported, in a
Seattle newspaper, on research which created
an artificial childhood: ...hypnosis is a peculiar relationship
between two people. The hypnotist is a figure of parental authority,
just as a doctor is to a patient, or a teacher to his pupil. Even more
strikingly than in these other relationships, the subject tends to
respond emotionally to the hypnotist in the same manner that he
responded to his own parents in his childhood. In particular,
"parental" commands in the form of suggestions are readily obeyed...
(Margaret Estabrook, 1942, p. 1)
[...]
A hypnotist's use of authority can vary wildly. He can create the
state, then let the subject take full control; training in biofeedback
does that. At the other extreme, the hypnotist uses a totally
authoritarian strategy in which the subject never is expected to have
self-control in the hypnotic state again. Suggested total amnesia for
all events under trance may cause the subject to be consciously
unknowing of their hypnotic relationship. Complete amnesia is not
typical, however, even of deep trance events. Hypnosis, at best, is a
special way of encouraging a subject's unconscious mind to activate
its own capacity for healing. At worst, it can be the tool of an
abusive parasitizing of one mind by another for the purpose of
exploitation."


--------------------



Also see Nazi use of same http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...eing-ambushed)&p=975178&viewfull=1#post975178

--------------------

Hope this helps..
Arnie Lerma
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
Out of this came the CCH processes. The auditor, by moving the PC around in space (Look at that wall, walk over to that wall, etc) was, through Communication, establishing Control over, and ultimately some Havingness for the PC. The stated intention of this was to then follow up with sec checks and problems intensives to get some actual "case gain" on the PC so they had a subjective reality, and desire to continue.

This is a fine example of the use key clam words to invoke the Hubbardian trance, whether you intend to or not is irrelevant. This is EVIL.


The use of mimicry is explained in that little booklet from 1931, that I was told by the older man, who handed it to me to make available to you, was the publication that started Hubbard into his career of covert hypnotic manipulation of others...

"How to become an EXPERT OPERATOR" in my sig line. I suggest everyone read this and compare IT to the supposed 'training routines' (Shore story) in $cientology.

Arnie Lerma

Edit: I believe sig lines don't show up for guests, here is link to Expert Operator.
 
Last edited:

uniquemand

Unbeliever
This is why I have some dissonance about "objectives", especially when you don't explain to the person what you're doing it for, and what will define when it is finished. Getting a person to agree to do this is, in my opinion, a major betrayal. It's a different matter if the goal and the theory are understood by the person, and if they are not pushed to do it more than they are willing. This is certainly a way that transference can be established, and if the person is ignorant of that then they should learn about it first and have a look to see, at the end of a session, who was responsible for anything they did, for any insight that they had. If they are attributing it to the "auditor", or to "the tech", then transference is still a problem. Talk about it until they understand that they elected to do it, and any change that occurred was made by them, and that the "auditor" was only responsible for following a sort of scripted patter, had no special powers, etc. Especially early on in a therapeutic relationship it's important to be alert for this sort of phenomenon and straighten it out.
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron



I wasn't hypnotized, I was just really silly and was at an awkward point in life.

I'd quite like to blame becoming involved in the cult on my being hypnotized ... but it just wouldn't be true.


:no:
an F/N INDICATES hypnotic state..

Did you ever have an F/N?

When I started doing meditation, I wondered what the "meter" would do, so I checked it enough times to lose interest in checking it any longer, as I found, that without any doubt whatsoever that
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
Did you ever have an F/N?

When I started doing meditation, I wondered what the "meter" would do, so I checked it enough times to lose interest in checking it any longer, as I found, that without any doubt whatsoever that

an F/N INDICATES trance state..

I think the term trance is loaded, but yes, it is likely that when a person is "f/ning" they are likely to be impressionable. That's part of learning. When a kid starts learning something, their mind is changing. There's no doubt that when you learn something, you become more likely to believe the validity of a process or method that brought you to that conclusion. That's why you're rushed to the examiner at that point, to get you to acknowledge that you were right and that it was Hubbard's technology that got you there. This is an abuse, but it doesn't mean a person shouldn't learn or have good feelings when they are learning. It both "confirms" the reality of your "win", and binds you to "the tech".
 

Sindy

Crusader
an F/N INDICATES hypnotic state..

Did you ever have an F/N?

When I started doing meditation, I wondered what the "meter" would do, so I checked it enough times to lose interest in checking it any longer, as I found, that without any doubt whatsoever that

Is there more to this post? :)

Ah, I see you filled it in above.
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
Is there more to this post? :)

Ah, I see you filled it in above.

When I started doing meditation, I wondered what the "meter" would do, so I checked it enough times to lose interest in checking it any longer, as I found, that without any doubt whatsoever that an F/N occurs whenever a person is in a trance. The beauty of meditation, is that it is YOUR trance, not a dead bad science fiction writer's abusive trance to steal your wallet..
 

Sindy

Crusader
I think the term trance is loaded, but yes, it is likely that when a person is "f/ning" they are likely to be impressionable. That's part of learning. When a kid starts learning something, their mind is changing. There's no doubt that when you learn something, you become more likely to believe the validity of a process or method that brought you to that conclusion. That's why you're rushed to the examiner at that point, to get you to acknowledge that you were right and that it was Hubbard's technology that got you there. This is an abuse, but it doesn't mean a person shouldn't learn or have good feelings when they are learning. It both "confirms" the reality of your "win", and binds you to "the tech".

"Trance" may be loaded. I know, for me, there is not a single better word to describe my experience. We're all different though.

My personal belief is that the greatest factor in becoming "impressionable" is group pressure and one's desire to NOT be thought of as:

Downstat
PTS/SP
Negative
Unable to Make it Go Right
Low Toned
Degraded

Along with wanting to be:

Able
Intelligent
Cause over MEST
High Toned
OT
Blah, blah, blah...

Hubbard laid that shit on thick as a brick. Agreeing to the basic premise of the whole damn thing was the only ingredient necessary to becoming impressionable and to the degree one disagreed, one was less impressionable (and also had a greater likelihood of spending a lot of time with the ethics officer).

To me, the most hypnotic, inculcating course was the PTS/SP course. Listening to those lectures of LRH droning on and on about the characteristics of these bad boys was to put one in a state of instability and introversion as to then instill the ideas he needed you to have. I am absolutely convinced of that. Is that hypnosis? I don't know. It certainly is suggestion under duress.
 
Last edited:
Top